Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A vote for Labour is a vote for Abortion - Iona Institute

Options
12357…14

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    cassi
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭cassi


    Min and BrenIreland, can I ask you guys a honest question since were on the subject?

    How exactly does it effect YOU, if a woman has an abortion? How exactly does it effect YOU, if two people of the same sex in a committed and loving relationship want to get married?

    Im not trying to get at you personally, Im just interested in hearing why people are so anti abortion and anti same sex marriage when, as I see it, it should really effect them at all!!


  • Options
    #123
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,493 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Brenireland wrote: »
    woooooow?,My comment really wasn't a woooooow type comment.

    I do realise that complications to occur in some pregnancies and that's unfortunate & very sad,However I am simply arguing that I am against Abortion,simple as.
    Actually, you're arguing that the woman should be "murdered" so that her unborn child should be kept alive. Incidentally, what about cases where both the mother and child are going to die unless the foetus is aborted?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #124
    TrollHammaren
    Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭TrollHammaren


    Brenireland wrote: »
    woooooow?,My comment really wasn't a woooooow type comment.

    I do realise that complications to occur in some pregnancies and that's unfortunate & very sad,However I am simply arguing that I am against Abortion,simple as.

    No, Bren, you argued that women who require abortions to save their lives are irresponsible for not ensuring they are healthy enough to become pregnant. This is the first time a post on boards has ever angered me, but your comment was offensive and ignorant towards thousands of women who suffer from unforeseeable pregnancy complications.


  • Options
    #125
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    Brenireland wrote: »
    woooooow?,My comment really wasn't a woooooow type comment.

    I do realise that complications to occur in some pregnancies and that's unfortunate & very sad,However I am simply arguing that I am against Abortion,simple as.

    You are not simply arguing that you are against abortion, you have called people who are pro choice, murderers bren.

    Now for me calling someone a murderer is a quite a leap from arguing against something being legislated for!


  • Options
    #126
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Brenireland wrote: »
    woooooow?,My comment really wasn't a woooooow type comment.

    I do realise that complications to occur in some pregnancies and that's unfortunate & very sad,However I am simply arguing that I am against Abortion,simple as.

    Can you verify that you do indeed put the right of the unborn above the right of the mother when there is a conflict between those two rights?

    P.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    bleg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    Min wrote: »

    If one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
    It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.


    Nope, different cultures and civilizations have had different views on marriage. There are even Christian groups that practice polygamy.


  • Options
    #128
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    28064212 wrote: »
    He would be charged with murder.

    No, under the Offences against the Person act, he would be charged with:

    58. Administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion.

    An entirely different crime, with a different definition and punishment to murder.

    Then he'd appeal, pointing out that that law does not give "due regard to the equal right to life of the mother", and his conviction would be thrown out, as the law is unconstitutional.

    We've known this since 1992.


  • Options
    #129
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,493 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    No, under the Offences against the Person act, he would be charged with:

    58. Administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion.
    Yep, my bad

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #130
    Brenireland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Brenireland


    28064212 wrote: »
    Outlawing homosexuality? So we're going to return to a theocracy. Why have a government at all so? We'll just do what the Bible tells us. Pity, I really liked shellfish


    In a case where the pregnancy threatens the mother, we can save her. You are saying we shouldn't. By your definition, that's murder


    Again, wrong. He would be charged with murder. In court, it would be raised that such a charge is unconstitutional. He would be found not guilty, and the judge would rule that the legislation must be changed as it is unconstitutional. Although I won't be holding my breath, since it's been 19 years and counting (even though they managed to push the blasphemy bill through in a week when they found out about that)

    Exactly,Well if we had a non-corrupt government/World wouldn't we be sorted?:),sadly corruption and rot has set into world governments and now ours & so have quite a-lot of "rights".

    "In a case where the pregnancy threatens the mother, we can save her. You are saying we shouldn't. By your definition, that's murder"

    But your confused,on one hand you are saying a child can now be saved as we have the ability to prevent natural deaths?

    so why can a perfectly healthy unborn Child die to save the mother,If as according to you,we have the ability to prevent such a thing from happening.

    Anyhow I gotta go,before I do my argument & what I am saying,is I am against Abortion,And as Labour are in favour of making it legal I will vote no to them.


  • Options
    #131
    TrollHammaren
    Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭TrollHammaren


    Min wrote: »
    one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
    It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.

    No one is looking to change the meaning of the word "marriage", a referendum would be called for an interpretation of the word "marriage" that allows for same-sex couples to be recognised by the state.

    The Catholic Church could still choose not to marry two men or two women in their church, just like they could choose not to marry an excommunicated man and woman.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,493 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Brenireland wrote: »
    Exactly,Well if we had a non-corrupt government/World wouldn't we be sorted?:),sadly corruption and rot has set into world governments and now ours & so have quite a-lot of "rights".
    What does that have to do with anything I said? I asked if you were for a return to a theocracy.
    Brenireland wrote: »
    so why can a perfectly healthy unborn Child die to save the mother,If as according to you,we have the ability to prevent such a thing from happening.
    That's not what I said at all. We do not have the ability to prevent a pregnancy threatening the life of the mother

    Once again, are you arguing that the woman should be "murdered" so that her unborn child should be kept alive? And incidentally, what about cases where both the mother and child are going to die unless the foetus is aborted?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #133
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Brenireland wrote: »
    .

    Anyhow I gotta go,before I do my argument & what I am saying,is I am against Abortion,And as Labour are in favour of making it legal I will vote no to them.

    Of course you have to run off before telling us whether or not you would forcibly sacrifice a woman's life to save a foetus. What a coincidence you have to leave.

    P.


  • Options
    #134
    Brenireland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Brenireland


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Can you verify that you do indeed put the right of the unborn above the right of the mother when there is a conflict between those two rights?

    P.

    Look to be honest,I am Pro-Life and I just find it sad,that someone has to die,& I understand for many it is a hard subject,I am sorry If what my post said was that a mother should suffer to save the child,I shouldn't really comment on any of this to be honest because I am not Qualified nor do I know enough so sorry if what was said has angered some.


  • Options
    #135
    TrollHammaren
    Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭TrollHammaren


    Brenireland wrote: »
    Exactly,Well if we had a non-corrupt government/World wouldn't we be sorted?:),sadly corruption and rot has set into world governments and now ours & so have quite a-lot of "rights".

    What do you mean, "wouldn't we be sorted"? I'm perfectly happy that two people can engage in a sexual practice, regardless of whether an unrelated body (the church) dicates whether or not it's evil.

    "In a case where the pregnancy threatens the mother, we can save her. You are saying we shouldn't. By your definition, that's murder"

    But your confused,on one hand you are saying a child can now be saved as we have the ability to prevent natural deaths?

    No, you're confused; read his/her post again.

    so why can a perfectly healthy unborn Child die to save the mother,If as according to you,we have the ability to prevent such a thing from happening.

    The child doesn't "have to die", but at least it allows for the mother to make an informed decision that isn't influenced by conservative restrictions.

    Anyhow I gotta go,before I do my argument & what I am saying,is I am against Abortion,And as Labour are in favour of making it legal I will vote no to them.

    No, you're arguing that people who vote for abortion in the case of threat to the mother's life are murderers.

    .


  • Options
    #136
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Brenireland wrote: »
    Look to be honest,I am Pro-Life and I just find it sad,that someone has to die

    I presume your inability to give a straight answer means that you think the "someone" is the mother. It's a simple yes/no answer.

    P.


  • Options
    #137
    TrollHammaren
    Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭TrollHammaren


    Brenireland wrote: »
    Look to be honest,I am Pro-Life and I just find it sad,that someone has to die,& I understand for many it is a hard subject,I am sorry If what my post said was that a mother should suffer to save the child,I shouldn't really comment on any of this to be honest because I am not Qualified nor do I know enough so sorry if what was said has angered some.

    That's fair enough.


  • Options
    #138
    Brenireland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Brenireland


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Of course you have to run off before telling us whether or not you would forcibly sacrifice a woman's life to save a foetus. What a coincidence you have to leave.

    P.

    sorry if it seemed a coincidence,I genuinely had to go but I stuck around.
    Look forcibly is a wrong word,My argument is that I am pro-Life,and I will not go any further,so I will not answer because I cannot,as I have not got the qualification.

    I was just giving my view,and sorry if it angered you.


  • Options
    #139
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    I am not getting involved in all the squabbling and am addressing the article this thread is based on. I find that the so-called religious people in this country are the ones who are the most unchristian like. If you want to be religious take care of you and your own first and if there is merit in your beliefs others will gravitate towards them. Do not impose your values on everyone else because life is not black and white it is various shades of grey.

    If I was truly cynical I could say that some of those aborted unwanted children were saved a life of abuse at the hands of the Catholic Clergy because it happened before. I am not cynical and recognise that those who carried out those acts were in the extreme minority but they were aided by the organisation of the church who either deliberately or through incompetence masked their existence and allowed them continue their disgusting behaviour. Why should an organisation that facilitated this abuse of children have any moral input into the political and legal structures of this country any longer.

    If you want to be a good Catholic be one and bring your family up in their traditions, if you want to be a good Muslim then be one and bring your family up their traditions but do not expect to dictate to the whole of society because some of your values do not match up to everyone elses. The time has long passed for Church and State to be separated totally. Abortion is a difficult question and it is not one that has a simple answer. I find the idea that a potential Mother Theresa or Einstein may not be brought into this world extremely distressing but I also recognise that if a mothers life is in danger or the pregnancy has occurred because of rape or incest that woman should have a choice in this major crossroads in her life. People who rant on in an extreme fashion about abortion really do not appreciate the damage it causes to those who have had to make this decision and who have gone this path. By their very actions and words they are extremely unchristian.

    I believe Labour are totally in the right want to look at the constitution and update it for the Ireland of today. It is based on thinking that is 5 or 6 generations ago. This country has changed totally in that time and the constitution should reflect that.


  • Options
    #140
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Well fook me, after reading the tripe spouted on this thread from the 'moral' brigade, there's another item that should be very high up the agenda for this election - seperation of church and state.


  • Options
    #141
    takun
    Registered Users Posts: 173 ✭✭takun


    Brenireland wrote: »
    No,I am not saying this is murder,Long before of "Abortion" came about many mothers passed away for many natural reasons while giving birth,this was not murder,this was death while in child birth & is indeed very sad,however the light at the end of the tunnel was the Newborn,who's life & Voice was born to the world.

    Any mother in the world would put their Child 1st if they had to & rightly so.

    Sorry, but I can't just let this slide by and you can't get off the hook by saying
    My argument is that I am pro-Life,and I will not go any further,so I will not answer because I cannot,as I have not got the qualification.

    It's not good enough to take an absolutist stance, and then when challenged with the hard realities that arise as a consequence of that stance back away. If those realities are hard to face, surely that means you need to question your stance? At least a little?

    It seems in the fist post quoted above as if, in some sort of bizarre contest between their various rights to life, you are saying that when a choice exists between mother and baby surviving, it's automatically the baby that wins the macabre competition.

    Why? On what authority do you say that 'Any mother in the world' would chose this? How to you balance so easily one person's right against another, in total ignorance of the individual circumstance of each case?

    I am a mother. If I found myself in the appalling situation where such a choice was required, I have no idea how I would even begin to make a decision, but it certainly would be influenced by many, many, many factors, including my other children and my own strong desire to live and the reality that there no automatically right or wrong answer at a time like that.

    I have absolutely no idea know how I would choose, so how can you you with such terrible certainty know who I would put first?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Brenireland wrote: »
    sorry if it seemed a coincidence,I genuinely had to go but I stuck around.
    Look forcibly is a wrong word,My argument is that I am pro-Life,and I will not go any further,so I will not answer because I cannot,as I have not got the qualification.

    I was just giving my view,and sorry if it angered you.

    Sorry, you're waffling. Whose life has priority: the mother or the foetus?

    P.


  • Options
    #143
    Brenireland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Brenireland


    oceanclub wrote: »
    I presume your inability to give a straight answer means that you think the "someone" is the mother. It's a simple yes/no answer.

    P.

    Like I said,I know I cannot give a simple YES/NO answer to such a question,I will not give an answer mainly because that is a decision and a very sad one,for someone to make/& to decide who should live,as a Christian I do not like to experience loss of life or the stopping of a heart,Not only Christians but many religions including atheists feel the same & rightly so.

    Ok Takun,I understand & agree with you,sorry if it angered you.


  • Options
    #144
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,493 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Brenireland wrote: »
    Like I said,I know I cannot give a simple YES/NO answer to such a question,I will not give an answer mainly because that is a decision and a very sad one,for someone to make/& to decide who should live,as a Christian I do not like to experience loss of life or the stopping of a heart,Not only Christians but many religions including atheists feel the same & rightly so.
    And yet you think that someone who does have to make that decision should go to prison for it

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #145
    Brenireland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Brenireland


    28064212 wrote: »
    And yet you think that someone who does have to make that decision should go to prison for it

    look,hasn't that been law in this country for years?,It is not me who decides who goes to prison.


  • Options
    #146
    supergowl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭supergowl


    Min wrote: »
    The constitution upholds the right to life to both the mother and the unborn.

    It is not legislated for what the Supreme court allowed so the right to life of the unborn in the constitution which is legislated for comes above what the Supreme court allowed.

    Yeah. that may be a valid point. Except for one detail that every 'pro-life' group appears to conveniently forget; your 'unborn' in this context is not a human life. Every major empirical study on the subject has proven that the foetus, up to the maximum applicable limit for abortion (i.e. 24 weeks) does not meet the definitions and requirements (i.e. neurologically, histologically, functionally) of valid human life. Therefore, up til then, the decision to carry it further is up to only one human life, and that is the mother. Taken into consideration with the denigrative effects of abortion bans of women's rights (e.g. that they are disqualified from making the decision that will monumentally and irrevocably (and often ruinously) affect their lives) this is a non-argument. Realistically, and rationally, a healthy functional woman is of greater worth to society than one saddled with an unwanted pregnancy. It is frankly time we got real in this country, and stopped kowtowing to a mindless ethic to nebulous, baseless religious ideals (which should have no place in a 21st century state constitution). We should give women the full reproductive rights they are entitled to, and stop living in the Dark Ages. This David Quinn might be the best PR agent Labour have got!

    (In case you were wondering, yes I am a woman, and yes, I have studied reproductive biology. I often consider leaving this country where my rights are so truncated. The choice for my having a child is and should be mine and mine alone. Every counter-argument is either baseless or purely hypothetical. To be blunt, there is no life on earth such a decision would **** up more than my own. The state should have no say in it, but it should have an obligation to provide adequate and safe facilities either way.)


  • Options
    #147
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Brenireland wrote: »
    look,hasn't that been law in this country for years?

    No, not since 1992.


  • Options
    #148
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Brenireland wrote: »
    Like I said,I know I cannot give a simple YES/NO answer to such a question,I will not give an answer mainly because that is a decision and a very sad one,for someone to make/& to decide who should live,as a Christian I do not like to experience loss of life or the stopping of a heart,Not only Christians but many religions including atheists feel the same & rightly so.

    Ok Takun,I understand & agree with you,sorry if it angered you.

    Well, we're all familar with how right-wing Christians handle the situation. Anyone who's read Emily O'Reilly's "Masterminds of the Right", no matter how long ago, will still remember the first chapter describing how a husband heard the screaming of his wife in pain from cancer because doctors refused to treat her because of her unborn child.

    P.


  • Options
    #149
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,493 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Brenireland wrote: »
    look,hasn't that been law in this country for years?,It is not me who decides who goes to prison.
    But you won't vote for Labour because of it? Labour want to bring in legislation which will allow for abortion when the mother's life is in danger. This is already in the constitution. That's what you're voting against

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #150
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Brenireland wrote: »
    why do these people have/or decide to have children if their health does not allow for it?,why don't people considering having a child look for advice from the Health Authorities before they decide,rather than have a child & then seek advice.
    I believe you are trolling. I say this as it is incomprehensible that you think that women magically stay healthy during the 9 months or so just because they are carrying a child.

    =-=

    BTW, when is the decapitation of the church from the state going to happen? The old fashioned f**ks should be exiled to Rome, and the Pedo priests be decapitated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Brenireland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Brenireland


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    No, not since 1992.

    oh,okay,like I said my facts are all over the place!.

    I mainly wanted to to say that I was against Labour for Abortion & now I realise other circumstances/Medical Circumstance's can change people situations that warrant it.

    But once they are medical circumstances if you see my point.


Advertisement